Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

[Grumpy Santa]

Grumpy Santa Premise 2: Is that true? Let's say this God of your does exist. If he creates creatures with "free will", then he doesn't actually know what their future actions will be. If that's the case, he's not omniscient, which is understood to be a property of God. If on the other hand he is omniscient, then he already knows what their future actions will be and free will becomes illusory.

Free will is defined as: The hability to make choices weather if others know what your choices will be in the future is irrelevant. There is no incompatibility between knowing the futer and free choice.

With this said, do you have any other objection with premise 2

Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Well yes, actually. The very beginning... "If God exists". You're taking a hypothetical and using that to conclude a fact. You're effectively stating that "If God exists, this could be true, therefore God exists."

For a premise to lead to a conclusion the premise must be demonstrably true. "God" existing has not been demonstrated to be true, therefore the premise is invalid.

I also do not concede the prior argument either. If God created people with free will, I mean truly actual free will, then he cannot be omniscient since he'd already know that persons future choices. The person would have no choice to his choices, they'd be written in future history already. So on this line of thinking there either is either...

1. No actual free will, just a god given illusion of it (which also implies a lack of omnipotence...) because in order to know your future that future would have to be set
2. Free will given by a god that cannot be omniscient

 

[leroy]

[Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Well yes, actually. The very beginning... "If God exists". You're taking a hypothetical and using that to conclude a fact. You're effectively stating that "If God exists, this could be true, therefore God exists."

For a premise to lead to a conclusion the premise must be demonstrably true. "God" existing has not been demonstrated to be true, therefore the premise is invalid.

I also do not concede the prior argument either. If God created people with free will, I mean truly actual free will, then he cannot be omniscient since he'd already know that persons future choices. The person would have no choice to his choices, they'd be written in future history already. So on this line of thinking there either is either...

1. No actual free will, just a god given illusion of it (which also implies a lack of omnipotence...) because in order to know your future that future would have to be set
2. Free will given by a god that cannot be omniscient

If god exist implies that I am assuming that the existence of God is possible, which is a very uncontroversial statement. I am putting God in the same category you would put aliens and bigfoot.



Again there is no contradiction between making choices and somebody knowing what choice you would make, the fact that others might know your choice does not imply that it was not a free choice.

If you disagree then you have the burden proof, you have to show that knowing the future and freewill are incompatible.


for example I know with a high degree of certainty that you will read this sentence in the near future, does my knowledge imply that you weren't free to decide to read this sentence?

the only difference between God and me is that God would be 100% sure and I would be 99.9% sure that you will read this sentence.
.

 

[leroy]

Another assertion that is unsbtantiated. Again, where is the contradiction? You state there is one but it is absent from your comment. Free thinkers do make choices. They make choices free from authority or tradition, that is the definition of "free thinkers".

Why don't you start by defining "free thinkers" and by defining "free will"? I am sure that if you ask Aron Ra or anyone else, they would define their terms, why can't you? You "defined" free will as the ability to make choices but it must be more than this, surely. If not, then why don't you provide the definition "free will" as Aron Ra defines it to be? Be careful not to misrepresent him.

I agree with your definitions of free will and free thinker

with that said, do you agree that free thinking implies free will?

 

[MarsCydonia]

I agree with your definitions of free will and free thinker

with that said, do you agree that free thinking implies free will?

To agree that it implies free will, I would have to understand what is meant by free will. I don't think we mean the same thing.

 

[leroy]

I agree with your definitions of free will and free thinker

with that said, do you agree that free thinking implies free will?

To agree that it implies free will, I would have to understand what is meant by free will. I don't think we mean the same thing.

Free will » ability to makes choices, at least sometimes you can chose from various options, as oppose to determinism that states that your acctions where necessary and forced by prior events

I am curious, what other definition of free will could I have been using?

 

[Gnug215]

Aaaaand we're back to discussion beginner's philosophy and definitions of words.

THAT is a blunder that BOTH sides make all the time.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Aaaaand we're back to discussion beginner's philosophy and definitions of words.

THAT is a blunder that BOTH sides make all the time.

Indeed, I did write in an earlier comment that this discussion has nothing to do with science.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Free will » ability to makes choices, at least sometimes you can chose from various options, as oppose to determinism that states that your acctions where necessary and forced by prior events

I am curious, what other definition of free will could I have been using?

If we elaborate the terms of your "quote", Aron Ra would have been saying:
"There exists no possibility to make choices yet I have the ability to make choices free from authority and dogma".

Thus your "quote" from Aron Ra makes no sense and is almost certainly a misrepresentation: a lie

So you are wrong with this "logical contradiction" as well.

You are still 0 for 4.

 

[leroy]

Free will » ability to makes choices, at least sometimes you can chose from various options, as oppose to determinism that states that your acctions where necessary and forced by prior events

I am curious, what other definition of free will could I have been using?

If we elaborate the terms of your "quote", Aron Ra would have been saying:
"There exists no possibility to make choices yet I have the ability to make choices free from authority and dogma".

Thus your "quote" from Aron Ra makes no sense and is almost certainly a misrepresentation: a lie

So you are wrong with this "logical contradiction" as well.

You are still 0 for 4.

That is exactly my point, it makes no sense to deny free will and call yourself a free thinker.

Many atheist including ARONRA, deny free will but they make assertions that imply that free will is real.

There are videos on youtube where Aronra denies free will and there are videos where he calls himself a free thinker.
If you consider it relevant, I can look for those videos on youtube, but it will take a while because I don’t remember the titles of those videos.

Remember my argument is that Many atheist deny free will and call themselves free thinkers this includes Aronra, if you accept free will, then this blunder does not apply to you.

 

[MarsCydonia]

That is exaclty my point, it makes no sence to deny free will and call yourself a free thinker.

Many atheist including ARONRA, deny free will but they make asertions that imply that free will is real.

There are videos on youtube where Aronra denies free will and there are videos where he calls himself a free thinker.
If you consider it relevant, I can look for those videos on youtube, but it will take a while because I don’t remember the titles of those videos.

Remember my arguemnt is that SOME atheist deny free will and call themselfes free thinkers this includes Aronra, if you accept free will, then this bluder does not apply to you.

And my point remains that I am certainly convinced that you are misrepresenting him.

By applying your your definitions to him, you are not accurately representing his position, thus lying either wilfully or out of ignorance.

So indeed, I do consider this relevant. Find me the videos where Aron Ra defines the terms "free will" and "free thinker" so you do not apply your terms to his "citation", but his terms.

Note though, that I'm a compatibilist. I do think there is free will, just not libertarian free will.

And I would be in the same camp as Rumraket. The notion of libertarian free will is nonsensical to me (as I currently understand it).
I do not understand how it makes any kind of logical sense.

So you see, Leroy, unless you can demonstrate what Aron Ra meant with these terms, you cannot demonstrate that he actually made a logical contradiction. That's even another entirely different issue than you backing up your "citation" in your signature.

Until you can back it all of this up, your signature remains a lie.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

you are saying “since I haven´t donde any urine test, I can´t know if I had that cofee or not” I challenge you to make such an statemnt in your facebook account and see how many people laught at you.

Appeal to consequences and an argumentum ad populum in one sentence. Impressive, even for leroy. This is just one of the blunders leroy has made in this thread.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

[Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Well yes, actually. The very beginning... "If God exists". You're taking a hypothetical and using that to conclude a fact. You're effectively stating that "If God exists, this could be true, therefore God exists."

For a premise to lead to a conclusion the premise must be demonstrably true. "God" existing has not been demonstrated to be true, therefore the premise is invalid.

I also do not concede the prior argument either. If God created people with free will, I mean truly actual free will, then he cannot be omniscient since he'd already know that persons future choices. The person would have no choice to his choices, they'd be written in future history already. So on this line of thinking there either is either...

1. No actual free will, just a god given illusion of it (which also implies a lack of omnipotence...) because in order to know your future that future would have to be set
2. Free will given by a god that cannot be omniscient

If god exist implies that I am assuming that the existence of God is possible, which is a very uncontroversial statement. I am putting God in the same category you would put aliens and bigfoot.



Again there is no contradiction between making choices and somebody knowing what choice you would make, the fact that others might know your choice does not imply that it was not a free choice.

If you disagree then you have the burden proof, you have to show that knowing the future and freewill are incompatible.


for example I know with a high degree of certainty that you will read this sentence in the near future, does my knowledge imply that you weren't free to decide to read this sentence?

the only difference between God and me is that God would be 100% sure and I would be 99.9% sure that you will read this sentence.

Although Grumpy Santa doesn't mention it, this is one of the reasons why the standard quadrangle of the properties of "God" - omni-benevolence/omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence - are incompatible.

If God creates souls with free will, knowing that they're going to go to Hell for all eternity or be destroyed, this raises questions about God's goodness.

Also, although it may not appear that there's a contradiction in God creating souls with free will whilst knowing how they'll end up, it does raise questions about the point of having free will if God knows how we'll end up - not to mention my above point.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

.
And my point remains that I am certainly convinced that you are misrepresenting him.

By applying your your definitions to him, you are not accurately representing his position, thus lying either wilfully or out of ignorance.

So indeed, I do consider this relevant. Find me the videos where Aron Ra defines the terms "free will" and "free thinker" so you do not apply your terms to his "citation", but his terms.


So you see, Leroy, unless you can demonstrate what Aron Ra meant with these terms, you cannot demonstrate that he actually made a logical contradiction. That's even another entirely different issue than you backing up your "citation" in your signature.

Until you can back it all of this up, your signature remains a lie.

In this video Aronra openly admits that he doesn't believe in free will
in minute 16.13 the concept of free will is defined as the ability to make choices
in minute 16.58 Aronra argues that he doesn't believe in free will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qRT6MjjSs

it is a good time for you to simply through the towel and admit that at least some atheist, like Aronra, deny free will even thought they consider themselves freethinkers.

 

[surreptitious57]

Personal experiences are unreliable [ and notoriously so too ] because anecdotes are not actual evidence. But in any case a urine
sample would be evidence that you had drunk the coffee. So your testimony that you had done so would therefore be superfluous

Atheist forums are the only place in the world where you can make that kind of ridiculous claims without being mocked by everybody

you are saying since I haven t done any urine test I can t know if I had that cofee or not I challenge you to make such an statemnt in
your facebook account and see how many people laught at you

What I am saying is personal anecdotes are not automatically true. Therefore a more rigorous and independent means of verification is
required. Even if the claim is true it should not be accepted at face value as there is no way for anyone to know whether or not it is true

The scientific method is the most rigorous methodology that exists for testing hypotheses and investigating truth claims. An essential
component of it is inter subjectivity. The purpose of which is to minimise or eliminate bias from single person subjective interpretation

Also the validity of a truth claim is not dependent upon how popular it is. And so even if everyone were to laugh at me that would
not automatically render what I was saying false. It would be committing argumentum ad populum a very common logical fallacy

 

[leroy]

What I am saying is personal anecdotes are not automatically true.

That is a straw man, I never said that personal anecdotes are automatically true, All I said was that personal experiences are a reliable source of knowledge and that it is reasonable to accept your experiences as real, unless there is a good reason not to.

 

[surreptitious57]

What I am saying is personal anecdotes are not automatically true

That is a straw man I never said that personal anecdotes are automatically true All I said was that personal experiences are a
reliable source of knowledge and that it is reasonable to accept your experiences as real unless there is a good reason not to

It is not a straw man as I was not referencing your position but mine. And there are good reasons to not accept experiences as real such as naturally
occurring or chemically induced mental states. They may not always be possible to objectively determine from a single person subjective perspective

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[Premise 2: If God exist he could have created creatures with free will if he wants

Well yes, actually. The very beginning... "If God exists". You're taking a hypothetical and using that to conclude a fact. You're effectively stating that "If God exists, this could be true, therefore God exists."

For a premise to lead to a conclusion the premise must be demonstrably true. "God" existing has not been demonstrated to be true, therefore the premise is invalid.

I also do not concede the prior argument either. If God created people with free will, I mean truly actual free will, then he cannot be omniscient since he'd already know that persons future choices. The person would have no choice to his choices, they'd be written in future history already. So on this line of thinking there either is either...

1. No actual free will, just a god given illusion of it (which also implies a lack of omnipotence...) because in order to know your future that future would have to be set
2. Free will given by a god that cannot be omniscient

If god exist implies that I am assuming that the existence of God is possible, which is a very uncontroversial statement. I am putting God in the same category you would put aliens and bigfoot.



Again there is no contradiction between making choices and somebody knowing what choice you would make, the fact that others might know your choice does not imply that it was not a free choice.

If you disagree then you have the burden proof, you have to show that knowing the future and freewill are incompatible.


for example I know with a high degree of certainty that you will read this sentence in the near future, does my knowledge imply that you weren't free to decide to read this sentence?

the only difference between God and me is that God would be 100% sure and I would be 99.9% sure that you will read this sentence.
.

Exactly. You're making an assumption in premise two then later declaring "therefore god exists". That is invalid. You assumption can be wrong, blowing the entire argument out of the water.

And no, you're wrong on the last part. The different would be that, based on what you know so far, I'd likely read that sentence. God, on the other hand, already knew that I read (past tense) that sentence at a specific point in the future. You need to stop thinking of time linearly in this case. This is why "knowing everything" and "free will" are compatible. Knowing all implies throughout all time as well. In other words, the future already happened and you have complete knowledge of it. People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.

 

[MarsCydonia]

In this video Aronra openly admits that he doesn't believe in free will
in minute 16.13 the concept of free will is defined as the ability to make choices
in minute 16.58 Aronra argues that he doesn't believe in free will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qRT6MjjSs

it is a good time for you to simply through the towel and admit that at least some atheist, like Aronra, deny free will even thought they consider themselves freethinkers.

Do you understand what "free will" was implied to be in this video? "Free will" was implied to be more than the "ability to make choices".

"Free will" was implied to be ability to make choices indepedent of our brains. Why would anyone believe in that type of "free will"? Unless they're religious?

So I still do not see the contradictions between being a free thinker and freewill. Your "contradiction" appears to be:
Freethinking implies making choices, having thought, etc. free authority and dogma.
Free will implies the ability to make brain-less choices.

So if Aron Ra does not believe in this freewill but believes that we have the ability to make brain-based choices for which we can be held accountable, how does that contradict him stating he is a freethinker?

I will agree with you: some atheists consider themselves freethinkers and do not believe in freewill (depending on how it is defined, I certainly do not believe in freewill being brain-less choices).

Where I disagree with you is that it is some type of contradiction.

 

[leroy]

In this video Aronra openly admits that he doesn't believe in free will
in minute 16.13 the concept of free will is defined as the ability to make choices
in minute 16.58 Aronra argues that he doesn't believe in free will

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qRT6MjjSs

it is a good time for you to simply through the towel and admit that at least some atheist, like Aronra, deny free will even thought they consider themselves freethinkers.

Do you understand what "free will" was implied to be in this video? "Free will" was implied to be more than the "ability to make choices".

"Free will" was implied to be ability to make choices indepedent of our brains. Why would anyone believe in that type of "free will"? Unless they're religious?

So I still do not see the contradictions between being a free thinker and freewill. Your "contradiction" appears to be:
Freethinking implies making choices, having thought, etc. free authority and dogma.
Free will implies the ability to make brain-less choices.

So if Aron Ra does not believe in this freewill but believes that we have the ability to make brain-based choices for which we can be held accountable, how does that contradict him stating he is a freethinker?

I will agree with you: some atheists consider themselves freethinkers and do not believe in freewill (depending on how it is defined, I certainly do not believe in freewill being brain-less choices).

Where I disagree with you is that it is some type of contradiction.

No free will was defined in the video as the ability to make choices, this is how freewill has always been defined, nobody mentioned brainless choices you are simply making thighs up, (and yet you call me a lier)

The reason why Aronra rejects free will is because according to his view if you cant prove something empirically you cant know it, nor affirm it as true

since free will has never been proven empirically he cant affirm free will.


obviously no serious person will ever agree with aronra, there are many things that we know, atleast with a high degree of certainty, even if we cant prove them empirically. (see my coffee example)

there are 2 facts that you cant deny
1 aronra affirmed that he doesn't believe in free will
2 free will was defined as the ability to make choices

 

[leroy]

[Exactly. You're making an assumption in premise two then later declaring "therefore god exists". That is invalid. You assumption can be wrong, blowing the entire argument out of the water.

And no, you're wrong on the last part. The different would be that, based on what you know so far, I'd likely read that sentence. God, on the other hand, already knew that I read (past tense) that sentence at a specific point in the future. You need to stop thinking of time linearly in this case. This is why "knowing everything" and "free will" are compatible. Knowing all implies throughout all time as well. In other words, the future already happened and you have complete knowledge of it. People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff. .

No in premise 2 I am simply making the uncontroversial that if God exist he could have created creatures with free will, my only affirmation is that if God exist, there would be a possibility that he created creatures with free will.

You freely decided to read that sentence, the fact that I others knew about your free choice does not change the fact that you freely made the decision of reading the sentence.

Pretend that you freely decided to reed this sentence

now pretend that a time traveler already knew about your free decision

does the existence of the time traveler affect the fact that you freely decided to read the sentence?........No